Greek meltdown - any relevant SF 'sides Atlas Shrugged?
DouhetSukd
recurring SF theme. Not that is a bad thing if done well. Orwell for
one has done us all a massive favor with 1984.
Are there SF novels or short stories that criticize inefficient, but
well-intentioned welfare/over-socialized states?
Atlas Shrugged, I know and respect. Even though I see it as only
tangentially SF and only marginally entertaining. Anything else?
William Hyde
Vance's Wyst deals with a cradle-to-the-grave socialist state where
people are effectively much poorer than on other planets in the same
series, but have a lot more free time. It's not an outright slam,
and at the end a figure we are supposed to trust pays it a few
compliments, but on the whole the portrait is negative. It is
difficult to imagine anyone reading the book and thinking "yeah, I
want to live there".
William Hyde
Catherine Jefferson
> Criticizing greedy corporations and/or totalitarian states is a
> recurring SF theme. Not that is a bad thing if done well. Orwell for
> one has done us all a massive favor with 1984.
>
> Are there SF novels or short stories that criticize inefficient, but
> well-intentioned welfare/over-socialized states?
Definitely Alan Steele's "Coyote". Frankly, I think that he lays it on
a bit thick at the end, but he makes it clear that he doesn't approve of
*any* sort of government that significantly limits individual freedom
except to protect the lives and freedom of other individuals. His book
leaves semi-theocratic "conservative" big government looking roughly as
attractive as semi-"theocratic" "liberal" big government -- bad in both
cases.
> Atlas Shrugged, I know and respect. Even though I see it as only
> tangentially SF and only marginally entertaining. Anything else?
I've read Atlas Shrugged a few times. IMHO Rand's "The Fountainhead" is
a much better story, although not an exposition of government in the
same way.
Steele, I've already mentioned. Of course, Heinlein's "The Moon is a
Harsh Mistress" and parts of several other books by him. Ursula K.
LeGuin's "Dispossessed", which is a brilliant exposition of a leftist
take on anarchy. I'm sure other people will think of other books.
--
Catherine Jefferson <ar...@devsite.org>
Personal Home Page * <http://www.devsite.org/>
The SpamBouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
Robert Carnegie
I don't think that whichever E. E. "Doc" Smith tale it is where the
space industrialist tells Earth the hell with your organised labour,
the other planets are henceforth quitting subsidising you, counts as
well intentioned.
Nor - and it's quite a stretch to fit the definition anyway - a 1960s
novel somewhat soiled by explaining the proximately applicable plot
development, which is that one of several unpleasant things an Empire
of human-type inhabited worlds is doing is sending publicly donated
aid to one disease-stricken world with most of the donation going into
Empire treasury instead of to victims, and the "aid" actually arriving
with new communicable diseases to keep the whole thing going.
Kurt Busiek
A couple of the Jupiter novels were like that -- I think HIGHER
EDUCATION was one, and there was at least one more built on the
"liberals coddle kids and turn 'em into moron and criminals, but boot
camp teaches 'em responsibility" chassis.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com — for all your Busiek needs!
James Nicoll
Catherine Jefferson <spam...@spambouncer.org> wrote:
>On 5/29/2010 12:30 PM, DouhetSukd wrote:
>> Criticizing greedy corporations and/or totalitarian states is a
>> recurring SF theme. Not that is a bad thing if done well. Orwell for
>> one has done us all a massive favor with 1984.
>>
>> Are there SF novels or short stories that criticize inefficient, but
>> well-intentioned welfare/over-socialized states?
>
>Definitely Alan Steele's "Coyote". Frankly, I think that he lays it on
>a bit thick at the end, but he makes it clear that he doesn't approve of
>*any* sort of government that significantly limits individual freedom
>except to protect the lives and freedom of other individuals. His book
>leaves semi-theocratic "conservative" big government looking roughly as
>bad in both cases.
I fixed your typo for you.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Greg Goss
I think that several of Pournelle's characters were drawn from the
proles among a great sea of state-supported proles with only a few
productive people. I'm trying to remember if Heinlein's "I Will Fear
No Evil" was set against a similar backdrop.
I think that a fair number of the cyberpunk stories were set against a
similar backdrop. Count Zero?
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Robert A. Woodward
<eb011c0d-012d-42d4...@y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> DouhetSukd wrote:
> > Criticizing greedy corporations and/or totalitarian states is a
> > recurring SF theme. Not that is a bad thing if done well. Orwell for
> > one has done us all a massive favor with 1984.
> >
> > Are there SF novels or short stories that criticize inefficient, but
> > well-intentioned welfare/over-socialized states?
> >
> > Atlas Shrugged, I know and respect. Even though I see it as only
> > tangentially SF and only marginally entertaining. Anything else?
>
> I don't think that whichever E. E. "Doc" Smith tale it is where the
> space industrialist tells Earth the hell with your organised labour,
> the other planets are henceforth quitting subsidising you, counts as
> well intentioned.
>
I suspect that this was _Subspace Explorers_ (I think it was worse
than _The Galactic Primes_).
<snip of another example which I don't recognize>
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Jefferson <spam...@spambouncer.org> writes
>Of course, Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and parts of
>several other books by him.
Where is the well-intentioned welfare/over-socialised state in TMIAHM?
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Stewart Robert Hinsley
<eb011c0d-012d-42d4...@y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes
>DouhetSukd wrote:
>> Criticizing greedy corporations and/or totalitarian states is a
>> recurring SF theme. Not that is a bad thing if done well. Orwell for
>> one has done us all a massive favor with 1984.
>>
>> Are there SF novels or short stories that criticize inefficient, but
>> well-intentioned welfare/over-socialized states?
>>
>> Atlas Shrugged, I know and respect. Even though I see it as only
>> tangentially SF and only marginally entertaining. Anything else?
>
>I don't think that whichever E. E. "Doc" Smith tale it is where the
>space industrialist tells Earth the hell with your organised labour,
>the other planets are henceforth quitting subsidising you, counts as
>well intentioned.
Sub-space Explorers.
>
>Nor - and it's quite a stretch to fit the definition anyway - a 1960s
>novel somewhat soiled by explaining the proximately applicable plot
>development, which is that one of several unpleasant things an Empire
>of human-type inhabited worlds is doing is sending publicly donated
>aid to one disease-stricken world with most of the donation going into
>Empire treasury instead of to victims, and the "aid" actually arriving
>with new communicable diseases to keep the whole thing going.
If I recall correctly, that's a shorter work than a novel.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Robert Carnegie
> In message
> <eb011c0d-012d-42d4...@y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes
> >development, which is that one of several unpleasant things an Empire
> >of human-type inhabited worlds is doing is sending publicly donated
> >aid to one disease-stricken world with most of the donation going into
> >Empire treasury instead of to victims, and the "aid" actually arriving
> >with new communicable diseases to keep the whole thing going.
>
> If I recall correctly, that's a shorter work than a novel.
In ROT13 code: _Fgne Fhetrba_ Wnzrf Juvgr
It's a fixup, or looks like it. Incidentally I meant "spoiled", not
"soiled". Sorry!
To be deliberately vague -
Part 1: an ancient, supposedly benevolent genius, and unconscious
alien is brought to /spoiler/.
Part 2: the human protagonist travels from /spoiler/ to visit World-o'-
Sickness with the alien.
Part 3: the Empire pursues the protagonist back to /spoiler/ with a
substantial military force.
Part 2, where World-o'-Sickness is introduced, obviously has a downer
ending which isn't the writer's style, and I'm not sure how it would
be published other than leading into part 3. But part 1 is less
attached than my summary implies.
James Nicoll
DouhetSukd <douhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Criticizing greedy corporations and/or totalitarian states is a
>recurring SF theme. Not that is a bad thing if done well. Orwell for
>one has done us all a massive favor with 1984.
>
>Are there SF novels or short stories that criticize inefficient, but
>well-intentioned welfare/over-socialized states?
Kajillions. The 1970s and early 1980s would be a particular sweet spot
for this. See for example, ALONGSIDE NIGHT (America undergoes a Soviet-
style crisis of faith in its mode of government), DREAMRIDER (The deadly
threat of exploding LNG tankers leads to a dystopic world), BANDERSNATCH
(kid from the slums makes good), ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE (Libertarian leads
uprising against inefficient state without actually convincing people
his ideas about governement are the right ones), EXILE TO GLORY (white
boy trades politically correct America where the white man just can't
get a fair deal for freedom in space and a nice young girl who turns out
not to be a Space Whore), THE AVATAR (rabble-loving bureaucrat tries to
interfere with Man's Destiny to Explore Space and any Promicious Space
Celt Bards They Come Across), and so on.
Catherine Jefferson
I guess "well intentioned" doesn't describe the Warden, and the
societies on earth are mostly off-stage.
DouhetSukd
Alright, just to qualify the question a bit more. The inefficient
government needs to be fairly central to the plot, not just a straw
man mentioned mostly offstage that allows the vast majority of the
story to fawn over the rugged individualism displayed by the manly men
and comely women of Libertarian bent.
Atlas Shrugged spent plenty of time describing up all the silliness
that went into economic and social "planning" so that qualifies. IIRC
the majority of the people were acquiescing in the way things were
run, if not the results, not oppressed. Like Greece.
The men were manly though.
Personally, I see one SF-esque scenario actually likely to happen in
most of our countries, even the ones that try to run a tight ship:
generation cash grab.
Most countries' demographics are trending up in the age pyramid. As
people get older they work less and require more state services. They
also vote a lot more. Why would a boomer, in say 2030, vote for a
budget that would limit health care? Even if health care was killing
the budget. For example, US seniors already had coverage, before
Obamacare and I don't recall many older US voters fuming against
_that_ bit of spending.
One of our smarter finance ministers in British Columbia warned about
5 yrs ago that, on current trends of cutting government spending in
most areas to balance the books, the budget would eventually consist
of only Health Care and Education, but they would be even bigger.
Well-done SF allows us to explore what-if scenarios. I know some
economists are already starting to cover this ground.
James Nicoll
DouhetSukd <douhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Personally, I see one SF-esque scenario actually likely to happen in
>most of our countries, even the ones that try to run a tight ship:
>generation cash grab.
>
>Most countries' demographics are trending up in the age pyramid. As
>people get older they work less and require more state services. They
>also vote a lot more. Why would a boomer, in say 2030, vote for a
>budget that would limit health care?
Boomers don't get to vote directly on these things. Their representitives,
who will probably have their very own spiffy health program by virtue
of being representatives, do. Now, reps have to worry about re-election
but that's a matter of the proper spin on whatever they vote for.
As a real life example, after the spend-crazy Conservatives were replaced
by the Liberals in 1993, efforts to deal with the deficit left by the
spendthriftocrats in the PC Party led to cut-backs in funding for our
various medical systems. These cut-backs did not lead to the fall of the
federal Liberal Party (getting caught stealing wheelbarrow loads of cash
did). In part this is because while our systems are mandated at the federal
level and financed in part at the federal level, they're administered
by provincial governments, who would have been the ones seen as slashing
services. This was very bad for the Ontario NDP (Motto: We're ever so nice)
but not so bad for the Ontario PCs (Motto: channeling pure evil from the
eighth dimension) because we expected them to be pricks (turned out Ontarians
were ok with the kill an Indian policy, cut backs and tolerant of the hot
tubbing with the premier thing but not so keen on policies that killed white
people in Walkerton and led to tainted food scandals).
ObSF: THE IMMORTALS by James Gunn.
DouhetSukd
>
> Boomers don't get to vote directly on these things. Their representitives,
> who will probably have their very own spiffy health program by virtue
> of being representatives, do. Now, reps have to worry about re-election
> but that's a matter of the proper spin on whatever they vote for.
Nah, voters can usually be relied on to keep track of the pork coming
their way. The cutters' spin will be negated by their political
opponents' counterspin. And politicians are usually terrified at
getting slammed for social cuts or tax increases. Maybe more than is
warranted - the electorate can sometimes recognize the virtue of harsh
medicine. Thatcher comes to mind.
Still, if you cut entitlements you will almost always pay. Canada's
90s budget re-balancing being an exception.
You know, I am still trying to get a sense of how Canada went from a
being highly indebted to one of the less indebted G20s. I guess the
combination of a sense of urgency, lack of a reserve currency shelter
status, and a "there's no other way" acceptance? I was living in
France at the time, so didn't catch the debate. I believe it's also a
cultural thing, with many European countries just believing too much
at the core that the government can magically fix things without
needing any sacrifices from the people.
David DeLaney
>ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE (Libertarian leads
>uprising against inefficient state without actually convincing people
>his ideas about governement are the right ones),
...would this be different than AN ENEMY OF THE STATE by Wilson? Just checking.
Dave "and all those L Neil Smith books too? And some of Modesitt? And and
and... oh and where the Instrumentality of Mankind started OFF from..." DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
William December Starr
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) said:
> Kajillions. The 1970s and early 1980s would be a particular sweet
> spot for this. See for example, ALONGSIDE NIGHT (America undergoes
> a Soviet- style crisis of faith in its mode of government),
> DREAMRIDER (The deadly threat of exploding LNG tankers leads to a
> dystopic world), BANDERSNATCH (kid from the slums makes good),
I can't find a trace of a novel named BANDERSNATCH... who wrote it?
> ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE (Libertarian leads uprising against
> inefficient state without actually convincing people his ideas
> about governement are the right ones), EXILE TO GLORY (white boy
> trades politically correct America where the white man just can't
> get a fair deal for freedom in space and a nice young girl who
> turns out not to be a Space Whore),
EXILES TO GLORY, plural. And wasn't it a mandatory trade, in that
he had to get out of town^V^V^V off the planet before some street
gang killed him in revenge for his accidentally self-defensedly
killing one of their number (the namby-pamby state being utterly
unable to protect him, and probably not even interested in trying)?
Or was that some other Pournelle book?
(Whichever one it is, I think it's the only by-Pournelle-alone novel
I ever tried reading. I don't think I finished it.)
-- wds
James Nicoll
David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE (Libertarian leads
>>uprising against inefficient state without actually convincing people
>>his ideas about governement are the right ones),
>
>...would this be different than AN ENEMY OF THE STATE by Wilson? Just checking.
>
Greg Goss
>Alright, just to qualify the question a bit more. The inefficient
>government needs to be fairly central to the plot, not just a straw
>man mentioned mostly offstage that allows the vast majority of the
>story to fawn over the rugged individualism displayed by the manly men
>and comely women of Libertarian bent.
In Heinlein's Beyond This Horizon, the central character was a central
planner for a funny money economy. But his job wasn't a central part
of the novel.
>One of our smarter finance ministers in British Columbia warned about
>5 yrs ago that, on current trends of cutting government spending in
>most areas to balance the books, the budget would eventually consist
>of only Health Care and Education, but they would be even bigger.
Five years back, my cousin was running BC's finance ministry. (grin)
Greg Goss
>You know, I am still trying to get a sense of how Canada went from a
>being highly indebted to one of the less indebted G20s. I guess the
>combination of a sense of urgency, lack of a reserve currency shelter
>status, and a "there's no other way" acceptance?
There's also replacing a buried manufacturing tax with a fairly simple
VAT. We all love to hate the GST, but VATs are very efficient at
handling money and very hard to sidestep.
James Nicoll
That's the one. However, in Birth of Fire, the protagonist is a
convict who gets to get a second chance on Mars. Although Fantastic
Fiction says "wrongfully convicted" so I guess the State screwed up.
James Nicoll
>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) said:
>
>> Kajillions. The 1970s and early 1980s would be a particular sweet
>> spot for this. See for example, ALONGSIDE NIGHT (America undergoes
>> a Soviet- style crisis of faith in its mode of government),
>> DREAMRIDER (The deadly threat of exploding LNG tankers leads to a
>> dystopic world), BANDERSNATCH (kid from the slums makes good),
>
>I can't find a trace of a novel named BANDERSNATCH... who wrote it?
That should eb two words; BANDER SNATCH. Kevin O'Donnell Jr.
James Nicoll
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>DouhetSukd <douhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You know, I am still trying to get a sense of how Canada went from a
>>being highly indebted to one of the less indebted G20s. I guess the
>>combination of a sense of urgency, lack of a reserve currency shelter
>>status, and a "there's no other way" acceptance?
>
>There's also replacing a buried manufacturing tax with a fairly simple
>VAT. We all love to hate the GST, but VATs are very efficient at
>handling money and very hard to sidestep.
We did annihilate the party that brought it in but the next party kept
it.
The MP who got stuck with the uneviable job of explaining why "We will
get rid of the GST" really meant "We will keep the GST" was my MP. As
I recall, and I am not saying this played any role in Chretien's choice,
my MP supported Martin.
Dan Goodman
> DouhetSukd <douhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Alright, just to qualify the question a bit more. The inefficient
> > government needs to be fairly central to the plot, not just a straw
> > man mentioned mostly offstage that allows the vast majority of the
> > story to fawn over the rugged individualism displayed by the manly
> > men and comely women of Libertarian bent.
>
> In Heinlein's Beyond This Horizon, the central character was a central
> planner for a funny money economy. But his job wasn't a central part
> of the novel.
In that novel, the state breeds people to be rugged individualists.
--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal dsgood.dreamwidth.org (livejournal.com, insanejournal.com)
Dan Goodman
> DouhetSukd <douhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You know, I am still trying to get a sense of how Canada went from a
> > being highly indebted to one of the less indebted G20s. I guess the
> > combination of a sense of urgency, lack of a reserve currency
> > shelter status, and a "there's no other way" acceptance?
>
> There's also replacing a buried manufacturing tax with a fairly simple
> VAT. We all love to hate the GST, but VATs are very efficient at
> handling money and very hard to sidestep.
It would be interesting to have a tax which was really on value added
-- rather than processing added.
Of course, some businesses would have negative taxation; payment from
the government for the value they've subtracted.
Robert Carnegie
> Greg Goss wrote:
>
> > DouhetSukd <douhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You know, I am still trying to get a sense of how Canada went from a
> > > being highly indebted to one of the less indebted G20s. I guess the
> > > combination of a sense of urgency, lack of a reserve currency
> > > shelter status, and a "there's no other way" acceptance?
> >
> > There's also replacing a buried manufacturing tax with a fairly simple
> > VAT. We all love to hate the GST, but VATs are very efficient at
> > handling money and very hard to sidestep.
>
> It would be interesting to have a tax which was really on value added
> -- rather than processing added.
Well, if it's like Britain's, it's on price. If I sell grey-import
iPad computers for 500 lizzies, the tax that I have to charge to
customers is proportionately greater than if I sell the exact same
product for 400 lizzies.
If I'm a VAT-registered business, I can actually claim back - with a
short delay - VAT that I pay when buying stuff. So, net, after a
short delay, I send the government the difference between the VAT I
charged on customer's bills and the VAT I paid on invoices to me.
Mostly...
> Of course, some businesses would have negative taxation; payment from
> the government for the value they've subtracted.
That generally isn't a good business plan - but sometimes you're
selling something that isn't taxed and your overhead costs, even your
materials, are. So you, the businessman, aren't taking VAT from
customers and sending it to the government, you're getting it back.
Hot food isn't taxed, I think, children's clothing isn't taxed, there
are other exclusions - oh, books and newspapers. I think.
Walter Bushell
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
> We did annihilate the party that brought it in but the next party kept
> it.
Governments *hate* giving up revenue streams. OK, the new party *could*
banish the VAT, but then they need to replace the revenue and that is
going to cause more problems for the politicians than it solves.
Oh, yes and winding down the VAT is quite a problem, everybody in the
production and distribution chain has paid VAT on their inventory and
would not like not to able to recover the cost.
> The MP who got stuck with the uneviable job of explaining why "We will
> get rid of the GST" really meant "We will keep the GST" was my MP. As
> I recall, and I am not saying this played any role in Chretien's choice,
> my MP supported Martin.
Would you rather we increase income taxes or reduce social spending?
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
James Nicoll
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <htvbs1$loh$5...@reader1.panix.com>,
> jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
>>
>> We did annihilate the party that brought it in but the next party kept
>> it.
>
>Governments *hate* giving up revenue streams. OK, the new party *could*
>banish the VAT, but then they need to replace the revenue and that is
>going to cause more problems for the politicians than it solves.
Well, you know that's not necessarily true: look at cuts in income tax
rates in the last few decades. Up here, taxes on cigarettes were slashed
as part of what seems to have been a competition between Ontario and
Quebec to produce the most people killed by lung cancer.
>Oh, yes and winding down the VAT is quite a problem, everybody in the
>production and distribution chain has paid VAT on their inventory and
>would not like not to able to recover the cost.
>
Introducing it had its issues too. The tax it replaced was invisible.
To reduce the price+GST shock when the GST came in, companies could get
compensated for the FST already paid on goods in stock (I think. There
was definitely a credit one could get), which was supposed to passed
onto the customers in the form of not slapping the GST on top of prices
that already included the FST. Most companies saw this money as a windfall
and pocketed it.
The timing of the extra visible cost to customers was poorly timed, coming
as it did as the worst recession in generations was kicking off.
>> The MP who got stuck with the uneviable job of explaining why "We will
>> get rid of the GST" really meant "We will keep the GST" was my MP. As
>> I recall, and I am not saying this played any role in Chretien's choice,
>> my MP supported Martin.
>
>Would you rather we increase income taxes or reduce social spending?
>
>--
> A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Would you rather we increase income taxes or reduce social spending?
Or if you don't like the term "social", reduce other spending?
(Everybody has some spending they think is proper - which other people
would like to cut).
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
James Nicoll
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 May 2010 11:17:29 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Would you rather we increase income taxes or reduce social spending?
>
>Or if you don't like the term "social", reduce other spending?
>(Everybody has some spending they think is proper - which other people
>would like to cut).
We did that in the 1990s. It's really not as unthinkable as people appear
to believe.
Mike Ash
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
> In article <hbm706pmv7c898iru...@4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >On Mon, 31 May 2010 11:17:29 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Would you rather we increase income taxes or reduce social spending?
> >
> >Or if you don't like the term "social", reduce other spending?
> >(Everybody has some spending they think is proper - which other people
> >would like to cut).
>
> We did that in the 1990s. It's really not as unthinkable as people appear
> to believe.
Americans (I'm assuming Howard is American...) seem to frequently assume
that all other governments are just as dysfunctional as ours. Which is
understandable, since *most* of them are.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Dan Goodman
> In article <hu0m43$l4e$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
> > In article <hbm706pmv7c898iru...@4ax.com>,
> > Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 31 May 2010 11:17:29 -0400, Walter Bushell
> > > <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Would you rather we increase income taxes or reduce social
> > > > spending?
> > >
> > > Or if you don't like the term "social", reduce other spending?
> > > (Everybody has some spending they think is proper - which other
> > > people would like to cut).
> >
> > We did that in the 1990s. It's really not as unthinkable as people
> > appear to believe.
>
> Americans (I'm assuming Howard is American...) seem to frequently
> assume that all other governments are just as dysfunctional as ours.
> Which is understandable, since most of them are.
Which ones aren't?
Howard Brazee
>Americans (I'm assuming Howard is American...) seem to frequently assume
>that all other governments are just as dysfunctional as ours. Which is
>understandable, since *most* of them are.
Our areas of dysfunction seem to have a great deal of overlap.
Switching gears a bit, here's an article with some numbers about
"socialism" in various countries:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/27/94902/numbers-dont-add-up-to-us-being.html?storylink=addthis
Michael Stemper
>DouhetSukd wrote:
>> Are there SF novels or short stories that criticize inefficient, but
>> well-intentioned welfare/over-socialized states?
>>
>> Atlas Shrugged, I know and respect. Even though I see it as only
>> tangentially SF and only marginally entertaining. Anything else?
>
>I don't think that whichever E. E. "Doc" Smith tale it is where the
>space industrialist tells Earth the hell with your organised labour,
>the other planets are henceforth quitting subsidising you, counts as
>well intentioned.
As others have noted, that was _Subspace Explorers_. What nobody else
pointed our was that the Galaxians or whatever they called themselves
had no more use for Terran capital than they did Terran labor.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Reunite Gondwanaland!
Robert Carnegie
Good point.
Then again, I haven't read the book for a while, but I think the space
community was also arguing that for years, if you were a self-
sufficient achiever on Earth then you headed for space where the
opportunities for individual accomplishment were, leading to a kind of
Eloi-Morlock split between humans with different world-perspectives.
Joseph Nebus
>In article <hbm706pmv7c898iru...@4ax.com>,
>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 31 May 2010 11:17:29 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Would you rather we increase income taxes or reduce social spending?
>>
>>Or if you don't like the term "social", reduce other spending?
>>(Everybody has some spending they think is proper - which other people
>>would like to cut).
>We did that in the 1990s. It's really not as unthinkable as people appear
>to believe.
No, no, not possible; we've all learned the maxim about how
democracies last until the public finds it can vote itself on the dole
and then inevitably collapse, so it's just a matter of the unavoidable
doom of doomingly doomed doomedness. Can't be any other way. It's a
mathematically perfectly proved proposition.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:nebusj.1...@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu:
> jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>
>>In article <hbm706pmv7c898iru...@4ax.com>,
>>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 31 May 2010 11:17:29 -0400, Walter Bushell
>>><pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Would you rather we increase income taxes or reduce social
>>>>spending?
>>>
>>>Or if you don't like the term "social", reduce other spending?
>>>(Everybody has some spending they think is proper - which other
>>>people would like to cut).
>
>>We did that in the 1990s. It's really not as unthinkable as
>>people appear to believe.
>
> No, no, not possible; we've all learned the maxim about how
> democracies last until the public finds it can vote itself on
> the dole and then inevitably collapse, so it's just a matter of
> the unavoidable doom of doomingly doomed doomedness. Can't be
> any other way. It's a mathematically perfectly proved
> proposition.
>
As a long time resident of California, who face a choice this year
for governor of a spamtard cunt or Moonbeam II, I wish you were
kidding. But that's pretty much how the California constitution is
written these days.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
noRm d. plumBeR
Count up all your social workers and politicians and bureaucrats and
cops and see if you don't already have a voting majority; beyond that
bothering is pointless.
California is a great place to be from, may I never set foot in the
state again.
--
"Vengeance is mine" saith Montezuma
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:uead069v05osqc1ia...@4ax.com:
In California, God is the teachers' union, supported as a rule by
the prison guards' unions. Not much can stand against their
interests.
>
> California is a great place to be from,
Having lived in uncle/granspa country in Missouri, I know there are
*far* worse places.
> may I never set foot in
> the state again.
>
There, we agree. Completely. Please do stay away.
Wayne Throop
: It's a mathematically perfectly proved proposition.
Watch me paste this pathetic palooka with a powerful paralyzing
perfect pachedermous percussion pitch.
--- Bugs Bunny, "Baseball Bugs", 1946
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Michael Stemper
>Michael Stemper wrote:
>> As others have noted, that was _Subspace Explorers_. What nobody else
>> pointed our was that the Galaxians or whatever they called themselves
>> had no more use for Terran capital than they did Terran labor.
>
>Good point.
>
>Then again, I haven't read the book for a while, but I think the space
>community was also arguing that for years, if you were a self-
>sufficient achiever on Earth then you headed for space where the
>opportunities for individual accomplishment were, leading to a kind of
>Eloi-Morlock split between humans with different world-perspectives.
That was discussed and also portrayed.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
William December Starr
"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> said:
> Mike Ash wrote:
>
>> Americans (I'm assuming Howard is American...) seem to frequently
>> assume that all other governments are just as dysfunctional as
>> ours. Which is understandable, since most of them are.
>
> Which ones aren't?
China? (Horrible != dysfunctional, after all.)
-- wds
DouhetSukd
> In article <xn0gusoii5tcp2...@news.iphouse.com>,
In terms of the government being relatively competent and/or able to
pay down debts I would say that:
Canada's come a long way from being the sick man of the OCDE, debt-
wise.
The UK may be going through a pretty rough stretch but compare that to
their pre-Thatcher state and again you have a big improvement.
New Zealand has liberalized enormously, including getting rid of their
farm subsidies.
China? Hardly a poster child in absolute terms, but still a vast
improvement in relative terms over the Great Leap Forward years.
The US? I wouldn't discount y'all. The two big problems I see are an
addiction to pork at the Congressional level. And a distressing
recent habit whereby people have to posture about liberals/
conservatives with little in terms of actual policy content
differences. I.e. I watched the 2nd Kerry-Bush debate, over foreign
policy and Kerry was pretty much toeing the Bush line anyway. Staying
in Iraq, tough on terror, friend of Israel, the works. So why the
outraged Micheal Moores and Ann Coulters? Who knows? Sells books and
air time, I guess. Contrast with European countries in the 70s where
there were sizeable Communist (not Socialist) parties and people
managed to remain civil to each other. Demonizing "the other guys" is
not a good way to run a country. Or to be a citizen either.
But at least Americans don't see the government as a magic problem
solver, unlike most Europeans.
Howard Brazee
Starr) wrote:
>>> Americans (I'm assuming Howard is American...) seem to frequently
>>> assume that all other governments are just as dysfunctional as
>>> ours. Which is understandable, since most of them are.
>>
>> Which ones aren't?
>
>China? (Horrible != dysfunctional, after all.)
It's dysfunctional - mostly in the same ways as the rest of the world,
but not entirely the same. China might have some political will to
enforce the economists statement that companies "too big to fail are
too big".
But its economic bubble is just as subject to bursting as any other
economic bubble.
Howard Brazee
<douhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The US? I wouldn't discount y'all. The two big problems I see are an
>addiction to pork at the Congressional level. And a distressing
>recent habit whereby people have to posture about liberals/
>conservatives with little in terms of actual policy content
>differences.
Voters rarely in history have voted about policy - we vote about
identity. I don't see any real difference between Obama and GWB,
but the conservatives who are in favor of Big Government keeping its
hands off of social security and their medical insurance are calling
Obama the magic word "socialist".
Pork has always been a problem. But what's a newer problem is the
strong need for politicians to raise lots of money which they get from
Big Business. To know who a person works for - follow the money.
DouhetSukd
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 19:07:34 -0700 (PDT), DouhetSukd
>
> >The US? I wouldn't discount y'all. The two big problems I see are an
> >addiction to pork at the Congressional level. And a distressing
> >recent habit whereby people have to posture about liberals/
> >conservatives with little in terms of actual policy content
> >differences.
>
> Voters rarely in history have voted about policy - we vote about
> identity.
Granted, in a US context where is little policy difference.
The voters of Venezuela, Bolivia and Argentina probably see plenty of
it and vote accordingly. Egyptian voters probably would like to see
more of it. Thatcher '79 probably had some too.
Those people have plenty of reason to be pissed at each other. And it
is an interesting experience to sit at a family dinner and be lectured
at by a Commie True Believer, rather than just a left of center
Socialist.
I don't see any real difference between Obama and GWB,
> but the conservatives who are in favor of Big Government keeping its
> hands off of social security and their medical insurance are calling
> Obama the magic word "socialist".
Far as spending goes, true. Or Pakistan drone strikes. But GWB had
the magic Microphone of Fumbling (-4 to non-US audience reaction rolls,
+5 to Reps,-5 to Dems), while Obama has the magic Mike of Golden
Tongue (+4 to non-US audience,+5 to Dems, -5 to Reps).
>
> Pork has always been a problem. But what's a newer problem is the
> strong need for politicians to raise lots of money which they get from
> Big Business. To know who a person works for - follow the money.
Or Unions. Fund raising should be banned, replaced by, maybe
government funding. The trick being how to fund new parties without
sponsoring frivolous or fringe ones. But the US has some experience
with that already (are there not rules that in practice only limit
matching funds to Reps and Dems?).
But a big part of the fix, imho is American citizens realizing that
their opposite party counterparts are not spawn of evil. And
realizing that the Michael Moores and Ann Coulters are making $$$$$
goading them on.
Being discreet about how you vote breeds civility.
Robert Carnegie
> Voters rarely in history have voted about policy - we vote about
> identity. I don't see any real difference between Obama and GWB,
> but the conservatives who are in favor of Big Government keeping its
> hands off of social security and their medical insurance are calling
> Obama the magic word "socialist".
_The Daily Show_ a few times has played video of Obama and Bush
apparently saying much the same
thing, word for word. Sometimes with Republicans clamorously
complaining about Obama's disgusting argument.
Then again, it's very much not what you say but what you do that
counts. Indeed I think a politician's followers can tell what to
ignore of what they say; what's sincere and what is carefully included
to deceive the less-faithful.
Having said that, on international relations, particularly, most
politicians (in all countries) usually mean and often say the same
thing towards other nations, namely, "We are allowing you to live
because we doubt that we can destroy you and/or we believe that we can
profitably exploit you."
Currently it's Hillary Clinton delivering that message from the U.S.,
which, I can say viewing it from elsewhere, is super scary.
Howard Brazee
<douhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Voters rarely in history have voted about policy - we vote about
>> identity. � �
>
>Granted, in a US context where is little policy difference.
>
>The voters of Venezuela, Bolivia and Argentina probably see plenty of
>it and vote accordingly. Egyptian voters probably would like to see
>more of it. Thatcher '79 probably had some too.
Others have more real differences between parties - but voters still
vote for whom they identify with. Sure some people identify as
communist or capitalist or Sunni or Shiite or whatever.
Mike Van Pelt
DouhetSukd <douhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>... GWB had the magic Microphone of Fumbling (-4 to non-US
>audience reaction rolls, +5 to Reps,-5 to Dems), while Obama has
>the magic Mike of Golden Tongue (+4 to non-US audience,+5 to
>Dems, -5 to Reps).
Heh.... That's pretty good.
>Fund raising should be banned, replaced by, maybe government
>funding. The trick being how to fund new parties without
>sponsoring frivolous or fringe ones. But the US has some
>experience with that already (are there not rules that in
>practice only limit matching funds to Reps and Dems?).
What's wrong with fringe parties? Let a hundred Monster Raving
Loony Paries bloom. Except for that little "plurality takes
all" thing in some jurisdictions, and the bother of runoffs.
Neither of the two parties really appeals to me at the moment.
Banning fund raising is tricky. What do you mean by "fund
raising"? Can you stop someone spending their own money,
independently, to advocate policies or candidates they favor?
Someone with an opinion publishing a web page? Partisan
postings to Usenet?
(Egad, election day tomorrow in California. No one to vote for.
No one. I'm not sure who I most want to vote against. I really
want "None Of The Above Idiots." What an irredemable batch of
bozos we're stuck with this election. I'd happily vote for
Screaming Lord Sutch if he were on the ballot over the lot of
'em. I may write him in anyway. Or maybe Cthulhu.)
I really want to see some kind of transferrable-vote system put
into place, like the Australian ballot used for the Hugos, or
Condorcet, and then encourage all kinds of splinter parties.
Then I could make my "a plague on both your parties" vote, while
not effectively robbing the Stupid Party of my vote against the
Evil Party, or vice versa.
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston
Mike Van Pelt
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On 4 Jun 2010 21:49:20 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December
>Starr) wrote:
>>
>>China? (Horrible != dysfunctional, after all.)
>
>It's dysfunctional - mostly in the same ways as the rest of the
>world, but not entirely the same. China might have some
>political will to enforce the economists statement that
>companies "too big to fail are too big".
China also has the political will to just kill as many dissidents
as it takes to enforce the will of the State, and peddle their
organs to "transplant tourists".
Horrible, yes, no matter how "functional" it may or may not be.
(There was someone on the radio a while back talking about how
easy it was to get his liver transplant in China, as if that
were a good thing. I wanted to call in and ask him if he got
to pick out the involuntary donor of the liver, like picking
a lobster in the tank at a seafood restaurant.)
Lynn McGuire
> well-intentioned welfare/over-socialized states?
"Distraction" by Bruce Sterling:
http://www.amazon.com/Distraction-Bruce-Sterling/dp/0553576399/
"It's the year 2044, and America has gone to hell. A disenfranchised U.S. Air Force
base has turned to highway robbery in order to pay the bills. Vast chunks of the
population live nomadic lives fueled by cheap transportation and even cheaper
computer power. Warfare has shifted from the battlefield to the global networks, and
China holds the information edge over all comers. Global warming is raising sea
level, which in turn is drowning coastal cities. And the U.S. government has become
nearly meaningless. ..."
"Freehold" by MIchael Williamson:
http://www.amazon.com/Freehold-Michael-Z-Williamson/dp/0743471792/
"The innocent run when everyone Pursueth! Sergeant Kendra Pacelli is innocent, but
that doesn't matter to the repressive government pursuing her. Mistakes might be
made, but they are never acknowledged, especially when billions of embezzled dollars
earned from illegal weapons sales are at stake. But where does one run when all Earth
and most settled planets are under the aegis of one government? Answer: The Freehold
of Grainne, the only developed system that belongs to neither the unes nor the Colonial
Alliance. There, one may seek asylum and build a new life in a society that doesn't
track its residents every move, which is just what Pacelli has done. But now things are
about to go royally to hell. Because Earth's government has found out where she is...
This is a fast-paced novel of an indomitable individual against a monolithic tyranny. "
Lynn
Robert Carnegie
> In article <f75ed39c-8568-46ea-a554-b8ed7f20e...@31g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> DouhetSukd <douhets...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >... GWB had the magic Microphone of Fumbling (-4 to non-US
> >audience reaction rolls, +5 to Reps,-5 to Dems), while Obama has
> >the magic Mike of Golden Tongue (+4 to non-US audience,+5 to
> >Dems, -5 to Reps).
>
> Heh.... That's pretty good.
>
> >Fund raising should be banned, replaced by, maybe government
> >funding. The trick being how to fund new parties without
> >sponsoring frivolous or fringe ones. But the US has some
> >experience with that already (are there not rules that in
> >practice only limit matching funds to Reps and Dems?).
>
> What's wrong with fringe parties? Let a hundred Monster Raving
> Loony Paries bloom. Except for that little "plurality takes
> all" thing in some jurisdictions, and the bother of runoffs.
>
> Neither of the two parties really appeals to me at the moment.
>
> Banning fund raising is tricky. What do you mean by "fund
> raising"? Can you stop someone spending their own money,
> independently, to advocate policies or candidates they favor?
> Someone with an opinion publishing a web page? Partisan
> postings to Usenet?
If we drop the price of publishing a political mesage to zero, does
political fund raising become irrelevant?
I suppose that I'm imagining here "it's on the Internet" - "it costs
nothing" - plus a slice of utopia remaining. I mean, you've got your
message, but you also have to have, for example, your spindoctors.
And they need to eat.
Alternatively, there's Iain M. Banks's "Culture" model, where super-
intelligent computer brains benevolently rule over us.
But that probably costs more to do.
Michael Stemper
>> Are there SF novels or short stories that criticize inefficient, but
>> well-intentioned welfare/over-socialized states?
>"Freehold" by MIchael Williamson:
> http://www.amazon.com/Freehold-Michael-Z-Williamson/dp/0743471792/
>"The innocent run when everyone Pursueth! Sergeant Kendra Pacelli is innocent,
This reminded me of Captain Cordelia Naismith's return to Beta Colony
after her Barayaran captivity in _Shards of Honor_. It was only a few
chapters, rather than the point of the book. But, it was a nice capsule
jab at nanny states.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce,
they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.
Lynn McGuire
> after her Barayaran captivity in _Shards of Honor_. It was only a few
> chapters, rather than the point of the book. But, it was a nice capsule
> jab at nanny states.
http://www.amazon.com/Shards-Honor-Lois-McMaster-Bujold/dp/0671720872/
Yes ! One of my favorite books of all time !
Lynn
DouhetSukd
> > Are there SF novels or short stories that criticize inefficient, but
> > well-intentioned welfare/over-socialized states?
>
> "Distraction" by Bruce Sterling:
> http://www.amazon.com/Distraction-Bruce-Sterling/dp/0553576399/
> "It's the year 2044, and America has gone to hell. A disenfranchised U.S. Air Force
> base has turned to highway robbery in order to pay the bills. Vast chunks of the
> population live nomadic lives fueled by cheap transportation and even cheaper
> computer power. Warfare has shifted from the battlefield to the global networks, and
> China holds the information edge over all comers. Global warming is raising sea
> level, which in turn is drowning coastal cities. And the U.S. government has become
> nearly meaningless. ..."
Excellent book. However, while it has been a while, I can't remember
the USA being a socialist country in it as such. A broke country,
sure, but not a highly organized, if inefficient, socialist
government. I got the distinct impression it was had gone post-nation-
state into anarcho-greenery-hackery. Some of Sterling's best work
though.
> "Freehold" by MIchael Williamson:
> http://www.amazon.com/Freehold-Michael-Z-Williamson/dp/0743471792/
> "The innocent run when everyone Pursueth! Sergeant Kendra Pacelli is innocent, but
> that doesn't matter to the repressive government pursuing her. Mistakes might be
> made, but they are never acknowledged, especially when billions of embezzled dollars
> earned from illegal weapons sales are at stake. But where does one run when all Earth
> and most settled planets are under the aegis of one government? Answer: The Freehold
> of Grainne, the only developed system that belongs to neither the unes nor the Colonial
> Alliance. There, one may seek asylum and build a new life in a society that doesn't
> track its residents every move, which is just what Pacelli has done. But now things are
> about to go royally to hell. Because Earth's government has found out where she is...
> This is a fast-paced novel of an indomitable individual against a monolithic tyranny. "
>
> Lynn
Sounds cool. But again a bit much on the repressive government
meter. None of the affected Euro governments are especially
oppressive, yet they are managing to mortgage their kids' futures away
rather impressively. Atlas Shrugged is really a good fit here: its
government is inefficient and muddled rather than evil or badly
intentioned.
Michael Flynn also had some good books about this kinda stuff IIRC,
but his focus was mostly on the sympathetic main characters.